woodenghost

Really? The one in the entrance hall or the one in the whale exhibit?

Not an expert, but I think they're a bit like DJ's. Some of those are famous too, right? And the musicians are like tracks, except they don't always keep their tempo, volume and pitch automatically, so the conductor job is more difficult than a DJ's. The conductor fine tunes all of this. Telling the individual musicians when to start and stop, how fast to go, how loud to play. The sheets leave plenty of room for interpretation.

Lots of other things are controlled by the conductor, too.

There is a great walking tour about Marx and Engels life in London. The guide even sang the international for us in front of the pub, where the first international met.

Wow, that's really good advice 👍 I'm on boardgame geek and hadn't thought of that.

This would work inverted as well: "Yeah, I'm running a quick vibe check on the data to find out where the noise is coming from."

What everyone says doesn't completely answer the question. Yes it's about selling your data and attention to advertisers. But if it's about the "meta", than there is a twofold strategy about it: first exploiting the network effect (wikipedia link) while growing. And then locking in the market ("keep you in their ecosystem"), thereby locking out competition. It's ironic, but capitalists hate competition (in their own field) so much they would do everything to avoid it.

Their ideal endgame is what Amazon has achieved: becoming so big, they can start selling other capitalists access to their walled in market.

All these platforms could have been made compatible with each other (like federated instances). Without content walled in behind logins, we would be able to put together our own feed with content from all over the Internet and choose our own algorithms to sort it. But then no one could sell your attention or data to advertisers and small creative upstarts would be able compete with big entrenched content providers.

Thank you!

There are some good critiques of thirdworldism in this thread already, so I won't add to them. But it really bothers me, how few people preface their comments with:"Yes, unequal exchange and superexploitation are real. Yes sometimes the working class in the imperial core benefits from them."

Acknowledge the material reality first, then make your argument. Also using "we" and "here" as a synonym for westerners or US citizens, as if no one else was using this platform is problematic.

I'm not thirdworldist and do think the international working class does have common interests and should stand united, but it is important to realize that sometimes western workers behave like a worker aristocracy.

Don't be like them avoid these errors. For example:

• When trade unions in the US support strict tariffs on China, because the bosses promise real hard, that then they'll refrain from moving production offshore. Then those unions enter into an alliance with western capital and become complicit in exploitation.

• When German leftist organizations want to be seen as reasonable, and acceptable by the state to avoid persecution and keep the little institutional support they get, there is one single thing they know they need to do(and most do it): fail to be anti imperialist and instead support NATO and Israel unconditionally or at least conveniently remain "neutral" to put the interests of the workers "at home" first. In doing so they betray the international working class and become complicit in genocide.

• Wherever people say "Yes, we support [struggle abroad / struggle of racialized minorities], but people wouldn't understand yet if we did something about it. So instead, let's focuse on [struggle of privileged parts of western working class] first.